Those of you who have been subscribers here are well aware of my thoughts and feelings about Dr. Pierre Kory of the FLCCC. He is an early treatment hero. He has sacrificed his professional reputation and possible license in order to save countless lives in America and around the globe.
This reveals the thinking of leaders not just in the UK, but in the US and other western nations that have adopted behavioral science "Nudge" strategies to implementing public policy. Should be right up your alley. The discussion gets into the acceptability of using deception and manipulation to achieve public policy goals. Drawing the line at subliminal deception, but other coercive deceit considered acceptable for achieving a "greater good."
That UK Parliament Subcommittee referenced work from another fascinating document by the Nuffield Bioethics Council that was first published in 2007. This is the ethical framework in which our public policy leaders are following today, and actually for quite some time. They call their approach, "Stewardship," that balances protections of individual health rights and collective health responsibility. Long. Very, very long, 200+ pages. Not highly technical, most have the vocabulary for it, but a lot of words to sort through. Don't let the UK origins of this confuse you or make you dismiss it as non-applicable. This guides our governance in the US, as well. Both governments are joined at the hip in these matters.
A lot of words needed by those using sophisticated linguistics to give the impression of a fair and balanced discussion of individual vs. collective concerns. By constructing numerous straw man arguments ostensibly supporting individual rights that they immediately strike down and discredit as they give them voice, while asserting collecitve responsibility as unquestionable facts. It engages in classic Orwellian "doublespeak" as it declares evidence must be provided to justify taking collective action without informed consent of individuals but then says that individuals bear the burden of providing evidence that proves resulting harm to reject the collective action if its imposed without evidence its safe and effective. The water fluoridation section gets into that example. Many similarities with mask mandates and experimental vaccines today.
This document can be summed up as mental masturbation for advocates of authoritarianism, stroking themselves into a froth of glorious benevolence that effervesces into blissful proclamations of "good stewardship" protecting all of humanity. King George couldn't have written a better reply to justify his rule after receiving the Declaration of Independence from the American colonies.
Great primer on Nudge Theory and Pitfalls (pulled from Archived web version, the actual site was taken down)
Michelle, this information shows that the origins of the many sweeping changes that ails society today, pandemic-related and beyond are in psychological manipulation of the public mind. The ethics of the field that you retired from no longer respecting the individual, the sanctity of one's own mind and reason. Treated as obstacles to be overcome by sophisticated mind trickery. To gain not just compliance with the demands of authorities, but to manufacture demand for authoritarian demands made of others not participating in a manufactured group think. The applied science of totalitarianism. The wheels have come off the ethical practice of psychology. This is something that those with your training and experience who are unburdened by threats of revocation of license to practice or economic sanction must build a movement within in order to help lead others who lack your training out of the aura of symbolic mystics and magic of linguistic sorcerers. Psychology has been weaponized against We, The People.
Jul 9, 2022·edited Jul 9, 2022Liked by Michelle Rabin Ph. D.
This is a study of "Covid skeptics" MIT released in January, 2021. It's long but not super long. It has a few sections that can be a little challenging to read but is mostly in plain language you'll be comfortable with. It's fascinating!
This study reveals the mindset of those "experts" making public policy today based on "the best science." Read how they define that. Read how they characterize "skeptics" who conduct rigorous science as the scientific method demands. Read their points of contention with the "skeptics" science. Read their conclusions about "skeptics."
You'll find their criticisms are from The Twilight Zone, not Earth 1. They are right because they declare they are, their consensus, their orthodox of science says so. No presentation of their evidence, no science to be objectively weighed. Just their assertions.
"Skeptics" are wrong because they aren't allowed into the exclusive club that is polled to divine "consensus." Their presentations of rigorously adhered to scientific research, data and findings lauded for producing research that belongs in top science publications like NEJM, JAMA. But dangerous and wrong because it is "unorthodox." Because the science "skeptics" produce challenges the consensus of those in authority. Not because its wrong. And because of that it is dangerous and must be countered or censored as dis/misinformation.
Dr. Kory knows this is what has become science in the US and the West today. A religion of strict orthodoxy that punishes heretics. Galileo and Socrates knew this type of science. We are living in a Twilight Zone waving goodbye to Earth 1. The system is irreparably broken, trust in our medical and science institutions forfeited forever. They must be razed to their foundations and rebuilt differently. The rot is that utter and complete. Civil disobedience is our wrecking ball. Strength in numbers is our mission, we must build our movement to sufficient numbers to overcome their power advantage. The system has become a dangerous religion of falsehoods that worships itself.
Michelle - you observations and arguments are spot on. I just get so saddened at the thought of trying to point out to supposed leaders in Medicine that multiple editors of the highest impact journals have for years openly discussed the lack of integrity to the research published. They dont care. They determine what evidence is "sufficient" and what is "insufficient evidence." Kind of hard to argue against the referee. But thank you for calling out the astounding and unconscionable silence of so many as people drop dead everywhere. There is really no such thing as informed consent anymore, except for the most motivated of patients and the most ethical of practitioners. Keep writing, I appreciate you.
On the subject of Bioethics, here's a fascinating document out of the UK:
ETHICS AND BEHAVIOUR CHANGE SEMINAR HELD AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS
February 10, 2011
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/17917.htm
This reveals the thinking of leaders not just in the UK, but in the US and other western nations that have adopted behavioral science "Nudge" strategies to implementing public policy. Should be right up your alley. The discussion gets into the acceptability of using deception and manipulation to achieve public policy goals. Drawing the line at subliminal deception, but other coercive deceit considered acceptable for achieving a "greater good."
That UK Parliament Subcommittee referenced work from another fascinating document by the Nuffield Bioethics Council that was first published in 2007. This is the ethical framework in which our public policy leaders are following today, and actually for quite some time. They call their approach, "Stewardship," that balances protections of individual health rights and collective health responsibility. Long. Very, very long, 200+ pages. Not highly technical, most have the vocabulary for it, but a lot of words to sort through. Don't let the UK origins of this confuse you or make you dismiss it as non-applicable. This guides our governance in the US, as well. Both governments are joined at the hip in these matters.
https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf
A lot of words needed by those using sophisticated linguistics to give the impression of a fair and balanced discussion of individual vs. collective concerns. By constructing numerous straw man arguments ostensibly supporting individual rights that they immediately strike down and discredit as they give them voice, while asserting collecitve responsibility as unquestionable facts. It engages in classic Orwellian "doublespeak" as it declares evidence must be provided to justify taking collective action without informed consent of individuals but then says that individuals bear the burden of providing evidence that proves resulting harm to reject the collective action if its imposed without evidence its safe and effective. The water fluoridation section gets into that example. Many similarities with mask mandates and experimental vaccines today.
This document can be summed up as mental masturbation for advocates of authoritarianism, stroking themselves into a froth of glorious benevolence that effervesces into blissful proclamations of "good stewardship" protecting all of humanity. King George couldn't have written a better reply to justify his rule after receiving the Declaration of Independence from the American colonies.
Great primer on Nudge Theory and Pitfalls (pulled from Archived web version, the actual site was taken down)
https://web.archive.org/web/20201128015542/https://www.asianwarrior.com/2018/03/nudge-theory-and-the-pitfalls-of-behavioural-economics.html
How to mobilize opposition to this corrupt system:
Annual Review of Psychology - Social Mobilization
September 16, 2007
https://sci-hub.st/10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033718
Michelle, this information shows that the origins of the many sweeping changes that ails society today, pandemic-related and beyond are in psychological manipulation of the public mind. The ethics of the field that you retired from no longer respecting the individual, the sanctity of one's own mind and reason. Treated as obstacles to be overcome by sophisticated mind trickery. To gain not just compliance with the demands of authorities, but to manufacture demand for authoritarian demands made of others not participating in a manufactured group think. The applied science of totalitarianism. The wheels have come off the ethical practice of psychology. This is something that those with your training and experience who are unburdened by threats of revocation of license to practice or economic sanction must build a movement within in order to help lead others who lack your training out of the aura of symbolic mystics and magic of linguistic sorcerers. Psychology has been weaponized against We, The People.
This is a study of "Covid skeptics" MIT released in January, 2021. It's long but not super long. It has a few sections that can be a little challenging to read but is mostly in plain language you'll be comfortable with. It's fascinating!
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.07993.pdf
This study reveals the mindset of those "experts" making public policy today based on "the best science." Read how they define that. Read how they characterize "skeptics" who conduct rigorous science as the scientific method demands. Read their points of contention with the "skeptics" science. Read their conclusions about "skeptics."
You'll find their criticisms are from The Twilight Zone, not Earth 1. They are right because they declare they are, their consensus, their orthodox of science says so. No presentation of their evidence, no science to be objectively weighed. Just their assertions.
"Skeptics" are wrong because they aren't allowed into the exclusive club that is polled to divine "consensus." Their presentations of rigorously adhered to scientific research, data and findings lauded for producing research that belongs in top science publications like NEJM, JAMA. But dangerous and wrong because it is "unorthodox." Because the science "skeptics" produce challenges the consensus of those in authority. Not because its wrong. And because of that it is dangerous and must be countered or censored as dis/misinformation.
Dr. Kory knows this is what has become science in the US and the West today. A religion of strict orthodoxy that punishes heretics. Galileo and Socrates knew this type of science. We are living in a Twilight Zone waving goodbye to Earth 1. The system is irreparably broken, trust in our medical and science institutions forfeited forever. They must be razed to their foundations and rebuilt differently. The rot is that utter and complete. Civil disobedience is our wrecking ball. Strength in numbers is our mission, we must build our movement to sufficient numbers to overcome their power advantage. The system has become a dangerous religion of falsehoods that worships itself.
Michelle - you observations and arguments are spot on. I just get so saddened at the thought of trying to point out to supposed leaders in Medicine that multiple editors of the highest impact journals have for years openly discussed the lack of integrity to the research published. They dont care. They determine what evidence is "sufficient" and what is "insufficient evidence." Kind of hard to argue against the referee. But thank you for calling out the astounding and unconscionable silence of so many as people drop dead everywhere. There is really no such thing as informed consent anymore, except for the most motivated of patients and the most ethical of practitioners. Keep writing, I appreciate you.